User talk:Dyne Talamasca
Stubs Hi Dyne - just wanted to let you know you can find "stubs" by visiting one of the special pages: http://history.secondserver.net/index.php/Special:Shortpages Eggy 21:07, 10 Apr 2006 (EDT) True. I'm just going by the wikipedia logic that not all short pages are necessarily stubs, and not all stubs are necessarily short. What constitutes a stub is more about its usefulness and breadth of content than its length. The short pages list would certainly show a large percentage of the stubs, but it's probably better to be explicit when you can. -- Dyne Suggestion for "Other" sims In your to-do you have "Figure out what to do with Other Sims and Teen_Sims-_Others" I was just thinking, what about categorizing those somehow under Sim Types category? Such as Sims -> Sim Types -> Linden Sims, with Linden Sims perhaps being another category? Would that make sense? Also should I delete the Other Sims category? Oz Spade 20:43, 28 Apr 2006 (EDT) That's what I'm thinking of doing (it's at the top of the to-do list). I think perhaps these would be useful: * Category:Linden Sims * Category:Deleted Sims * Category:Vehicle Sims * Category:Teen Sims * Category:City Sims * Category:Snow Sims The reason I didn't delete the Other category is because of the discussion page. -- Dyne 23:09, 28 Apr 2006 (EDT) Actually, upon further reflection... The sims in those articles are not what I was concerned about, so much as the articles themselves. Mainly the Teen Other article, which has a few tidbits of other information in it besides the list of sims. -- Dyne 23:39, 28 Apr 2006 (EDT) Deletion of categories As you go along and clear out a category for reorginization I'll delete the empty ones. For now I'll not delete the Teen Other page and the other one incase that needs to be used for something down the road, as you said theres some useful info in the Teen one. But if you decide to do something else and think that should be deleted, just blank the article and I'll delete it. So basicly I'll take an empty category/article to mean "delete me". Oz Spade 07:13, 30 Apr 2006 (EDT) That's fine. -- Dyne 07:16, 30 Apr 2006 (EDT) Sladen McLuhan - Notes *Grouping of Sims first by Continent then by their Regions (Snowlands) or name grouping (San Francisco Sims). *Each Sim entry can then be comprised of a general entry for the Sim and an image - the map of the Sim, and then links to all the landmarks within it, with the date the landmark first appeared. When landmarks move, there can then be a link off to and back from the Sim that the landmark moves to. All Sims can have the Sims Category, and historically important Sims can be in the Historical Sims Category also. *Each Landmark can have its own page. It can link to any Sim past and present that it has been in. I suggest that we have the Categories Landmark, Historically Important Landmark, and then a Category for the type of Landmark, though I'm not sure of the granularity to use - for the Guide, I was going to split things up into Shops/Type of shop, so that people looking for avatars could get a list of shops selling avatars for example. I don't know if you will want that sort of detail. - Sladen McLuhan I'm not sure what your first point is referring to. Are you talking about the order of category entries in articles? For the second point, I use a similar format for my sim articles (e.g., Caledon) which I was going to make into a template, but this version of Mediawiki apparently doesn't support that. I haven't added images for each sim, mostly because I've only written articles for Caledon, and the main entry contains a map of all of them (whenever I get around to updating it) Overall, my main concern is just the "historically important" stuff (for the same reasons I've favored de-emphasizing the overt history focus of the wiki). My thinking is that what is historically important is really a fairly personal and subjective question, unless it has an effect on literally everyone (changes to the SL software, for example). The updates that I make to Caledon's articles, for example, are a lot more significant to me than they would be to someone who has never seen the place. In contrast, info on the world's first dance club (or whatever) is, for me, trivia at best. As such, having categories and such aimed at that doesn't seem very useful. I'd feel unqualified and presumptious trying to decide what did and didn't belong in the "historically important" listings, so mostly I just write what I know and leave determining the historical significance of stuff to the whims of whoever is reading the material. As long as the the search engine works, the wiki articles are usefully interlinked, and the readers know vaguely what they are interested in, a general-purpose structure should get them the information. This is how I tend to use wikipedia, anyway: spending hours just clicking on randomly-interesting looking links, supplemented by occasional searches for something specific that springs to mind, or looking at categories for similar topics. For landmarks, I make no real effort to list every build when I write about a sim; there are just too many. The landmarks I mention on the Caledon articles are distinguishing features of the sims themselves, added by Desmond when they were designed. Those aside, if someone thinks a build deserves an entry and is willing to add one, then they are welcome to do so. -- Dyne 15:42, 6 Jun 2006 (EDT)